Possible Transfer Change ~ Bit of Auction Theory.

[robborover]

your points are all good ones. but recently the transfer rules were changed to the 24 hour rule to stop late bids. people just used to bid just before the simulation. everyone felt this was unfair. but when you think about it all the seller needed to do was put a starting bid which they were happy to sell at.

i believe that going back to the old system would correct all the issues for buyers and sellers as:

- a player would definitely be sold after X amount of days
- the selling team would get their price
- everyone has a fair chance to bid
- selling team could always sell the player earlier (and possibly for an arranged price)

[Arkzein]

Sounds good in theory but I'd be in the camp that would agree it was unfair or at least kind of defeats the auction system when thinking it through. Even assuming all sellers set a reasonable price for their players they are likely to set it as high as they think they can get and many players would go unsold as they misjudge the market values (again these are hard to know as there is little actual bidding going on for reasons I will state below). Or they judge too low get too little for their player. (whereas with the current system even then it will rise to market values)

For players that do get sold buyers just log on before the simulation and bid the 105%. Sellers do indeed get their price (as long as it is below the actual market value, they will be less well off on the whole), but there are a lot of disgruntled buyers. To make sure that they get the player, and at the lowest possible price, most won't even bid until right before the simulation, there is no reason to (whereas in the Anglo-dutch they must do so to be in the top few who get a chance at the final stage and in the pure English 24 hour is dosen't matter when in the day they bid) defeating the point of an auction.

Even if players who couldn't log on at 4am in the morning bid beforehand trying to get the player to a value high enough no one would bid at 4am it is unlikely they could do so without paying well pver the odds for the player.

Say a player is worth about 11,000,000. If the player who can't log on at 4am Bids 10,000,000, thinking it will be enough, what are the chances someone who values the player more will log on and bid 10,500,000 and beat him at 4am? Rather high.

To be Sure he will get the player the unfortunate buyer may put in what he believes to be the market value (again with no real auctions going on these levels won't sort themselves out), or above it, and will lose out as well. Say he puts in an offer od 12,000,000. he gets the player (as in an open market he would go for 11,000,000) but has paid over the odds. So he either loses the player, or pays too much unless he perfectly guesses the maximum market value (ie bids 11,000,000) which is unlikely.


Again what I was trying to come up with is a system that encourages bidding in the earlier stages, is fair to both sellers (they always get a reasonable price) and buyers (no change, they pay about the going market rate) but eliminates the need for auctions to run in for an absolute age.

I'd have to say the current system is a better than the old both for sellers (they get what they're player is worth no matter what they put him on the market for as long as it isn't too high) and buyers (the frustration of waiting is less than losing to a bid you would have bettered if given a chance) buy there's still room for improvement.

[robborover]

i agree with your cause mate. but it's the same in real life footy too.

the only answer to come to an agreement with the selling team. here's some theory and then a modification to your idea.

a market price is established when the buyer agrees to sell for a particular price.

if team a lists a player for 400k and team b bids 400k then everyone's happy.

if team a lists a player for 0 and hopes for the player to sell for a fair price. and team b bids 50k then it's their fault not the system.

if team a lists a player for 1 mill and team b bids 1 million, but team c bids 1.1 million and wins. then it's unfair on team b.

so to modify your idea i would add a hidden buy-it-now price like on ebay. list a player for 1 million but i'll sell straightaway for 2 million. that sort of thing. but keep it hidden from all buyers. then when the amount is met then the transfer is triggered.

this would stop outbidding at the last minute, give everyone a fair chance and be simple to implement and understand.

[Vaciux]

or maybe it could be so:
leave the system which is now, but for every day after 6 days the owner of the player has to pay 5% from the price of the player
for example: team A puts a player in the list for 0, team B bids 500000 on day 6, on day 7 the price of the player drops by 5% (from 500k to 475000) if team C bid 600000 on day 7, on day 8 (during the 4.00 am simulation) the price drops again by 5% and it goes like that until the seller sells the player

[robborover]

what so the selling team pays a fee for not selling after 6 days? isn't that unfair on the selling team though?

[Vaciux]

but then the selling team would accept the bid on the 6 day not waiting any longer

[Arkzein]

In real life there aren't thousands of teams in the market though.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say, you'd like to have a system wherby there is inperfect information and some sellers and buyers make bad deals because it's "just their fault"? (either setting the price too low or paying too much in the hopes not to be outbid at the last minute) With the current, and proposed system, the market will work at equilibirum or very close to it.

What happens if the reserve is not met? We're back to last minute buying or 24 hours extra. (and likely many reserves wouldn't be met.). Or if the reserve is set too low? Again an inefficency where the seller is worse off because they misjudge the market. The fear of this will drive the reserves up until msot are above the market value of the player making them needless. (Or even why bother to set one when you know otherwise you will get the most you possibly can for your player when leaving him on the market)

Also if set too low buyers are in a kind of lottery, imagine two bidding up at the 105% and one just happens to get lucky that his next bid is on the reserve (even when both would bid higher and higher) the other buyer is likely to be rather annoyed.

I think we're aiming for different systems here, what I'm hoping for is a one that meets the market eqilibium, all players going for their true value, while having a set time for the auction to end. Your proposals seem to head towards a system whereby experienced, aware, or just lucky players can get themselves good deals, not necessarily a bad thing in fact, building in some inefficiency and some skill and knowledge into the system but not is you want a purely fair one.

*edit* But then that brings in the lottery factor as well. If you're lucky enough to have the highest bid when the seller accepts (even if you and the other bidders would have went much higher) good for you. If not, tough luck. Plus the seller recieves less than the market value for the player, since players now know he is likely unlikely to be sold until day 6/7 they hold off until then before they begin bidding to get the player for a low as possible.

[robborover]

In real life there aren't thousands of teams in the market though.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say, you'd like to have a system wherby there is inperfect information and some sellers and buyers make bad deals because it's "just their fault"? (either setting the price too low or paying too much in the hopes not to be outbid at the last minute) With the current, and proposed system, the market will work at equilibirum or very close to it.

What happens if the reserve is not met? We're back to last minute buying or 24 hours extra. (and likely many reserves wouldn't be met.). Or if the reserve is set too low? Again an inefficency where the seller is worse off because they misjudge the market. The fear of this will drive the reserves up until msot are above the market value of the player making them needless. (Or even why bother to set one when you know otherwise you will get the most you possibly can for your player when leaving him on the market)

Also if set too low buyers are in a kind of lottery, imagine two bidding up at the 105% and one just happens to get lucky that his next bid is on the reserve (even when both would bid higher and higher) the other buyer is likely to be rather annoyed.

I think we're aiming for different systems here, what I'm hoping for is a one that meets the market eqilibium, all players going for their true value, while having a set time for the auction to end. Your proposals seem to head towards a system whereby experienced, aware, or just lucky players can get themselves good deals, not necessarily a bad thing in fact, building in some inefficiency and some skill and knowledge into the system but not is you want a purely fair one.

*edit* But then that brings in the lottery factor as well. If you're lucky enough to have the highest bid when the seller accepts (even if you and the other bidders would have went much higher) good for you. If not, tough luck. Plus the seller recieves less than the market value for the player, since players now know he is likely unlikely to be sold until day 6/7 they hold off until then before they begin bidding to get the player for a low as possible.

you're right there mate.

i don't really think it's a problem for selling teams. and i don't think there's much of a problem for buyers either. it's the other teams that get outbid because there isn't a fair way to buy a player, whilst keeping it fair and square.

who would've thought this would go onto nearly 3 pages? bout time this forum got a bit active!

[Arkzein]

Even if it is just a few of us, things have to start somewhere though. perhaps this time next year it'll be a hive of activity! *laughs*

[robborover]

definitely. there's a lot of managers who don't use the forum because it was only "how do i..." and "newbie needs help...." lets get some convo's started!

i know sjarel and the programmers keep an eye on the forums to get ideas, so it's always worth having a chat about things.

You never know they might use your idea!!!

[sljivovica]

your points are all good ones. but recently the transfer rules were changed to the 24 hour rule to stop late bids. people just used to bid just before the simulation. everyone felt this was unfair. but when you think about it all the seller needed to do was put a starting bid which they were happy to sell at.

The problem here lies not as much with the seller. Like you say, the seller sets the minimum prize, after that he should not complain.
The frustrating thing was, you could be on top of the buyers-list for days, expecting to get a player you really wanted, and a few minutes before the simulation, -beng-, some bozo comes in and outbids you in the middle of the night, leaving you no time to respond.... I know I have frustrated some other managers in those days , and I have been frustrated myself once or twice .
Brilliantly once: I was awake, outbid the other guy at 03:59, and within that same minute the other guy outbid me again, while I was going to bed, to dream of the new player I was going to get... Or so I thought
Talking about a bunch of addicts here

So that's why the new system came, extending the period with another 24 hours each day a bid was done. But now there are players on the Transferlist from April 23rd or 24th. Two weeks!

This way it just takes too long

i believe that going back to the old system would correct all the issues for buyers and sellers as:

- a player would definitely be sold after X amount of days
- the selling team would get their price
- everyone has a fair chance to bid
- selling team could always sell the player earlier (and possibly for an arranged price)

Same problem as above. The "old" system was fine for the sellers I think, but not cool for many of the buyers.
Arkzein's Idea pretty much keeps the Transfermarket on speed, and I think the effects on the player's prizes will not be too big.

There is one problem that I just thought of could happen: managers can mail eachother to manipulate the other top3 bidders. Say, I PM the other two managers, telling them I will offer 30.000.000 for that player, so they better keep their offers low.
Hoping that they do, I throw in a low offer myself, hoping to get the player as cheap as possible. This kind of thing should be prevented of course. (maybe by hiding the names of the bidders?)

Anyway, I'll really start translating this Idea now

[Arkzein]

Ah yes, collusion or perhaps a bit of signaling. Say for example there are only two bidders interested in the player. One could say to the other "Hey, don't bid too high and let me have the player and I'll sell you one of mine cheap after" or "I'll let you win that other player we're both bidding for". It can happen. Or one player could take massive leaps in the ascending phase (far more than the 105%) to signal that he/she will be bidding big in the final phase to put others off. (Not a problem that one, tactics of bidding that are allready used now)

Safeguards? Well the English phase should drive the price up high enough that the price is allready good for the seller anyway. (Remember you have to bid equal or higher to the final offer after 6 days in the closest phase) also the risk of cullusion is, I would hope, rather slight. Unless good friends they have no reason to trust one another. Ie Player A says to B and C, "I'm bidding this huge amount" yet B or C could then outbid him if it;s too low, call his bluff and bid a decent amount (when A bids low himself and loses) dangerous game.

But then you're right as well, to remove the issue entirely just remove the names of the bidders (as with free players) until the auction is over. Doesn't entirely prevent the problem, ie perhaps friends will communicate out of the game to keep prices low. But will eliminate most of it. I would also hope the chances of three or more firends being the only people interested in any decent player would be quite low.

It'll be interesting to see what the main userbase thinks of the idea, even if I'm unable to answer any questions they might have *laughs* Thanks sljivovica.

[robborover]

i understand what you are saying but i dont see it as a problem. there are now 15,000 odd members. so that's a lot of pm's to send if you want to keep the prices low!!!!

if the player is that good then i believe that the 15,000 members would drive a fair price, regardless of any factor.

[Paul_G]

I don't like all this. Just keep the system the way it is. Keep it simple.

No, you don't always get the player as quickly as you'd like. But at least if I want a player I know how much I need to pay for him to have the top offer. Everything is out in the open. The price is out there for everyone to see.

Besides, if someone wants a player really fast from me THAT badly, then PM me and give me a value that I know no-body else will match. I hate people who write me asking me to release so and so because they're the current top bidder and they need my player fast.... without offering any compensation for the extra money I'm gonna lose if I do that. I don't see why I should have to bend over backwards because some lummocks didn't plan and doesn't have a backup at a position when a starter gets hurt.

Anyway, going further, you don't HAVE to bid 5% more than the other offer, of course. If you really want a guy then bid 25% more than the other offer. If not then prepare to wait. That's the price you pay.

Plus don't forget we have many different players here of many different ages. We need to keep the rules as easy to understand as possible. These rules are fair, people understand them... why tamper with that?

[Arkzein]

Just trying to remove the irskome factor of waiting weeks on end for a player while leaving things "fair", and "idiot proof". (It's all well and good saying do this and that to get around the system but most people simply won't, better to have one that dosen't need work arounds) The idea isn't complicated in itself, though the theory behind it is rather verbose, (that was only there to show it wasn't just some off the cuff thing).

Seems to have gone under the radar anyway. I just thought it was worth putting out there for discussion.